Risk
1/23/2012
06:01 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Google+ Accepts Pseudonyms, With Caveats

Google+ updated name policy stops short of unqualified pseudonym acceptance, but endorses use of "established" alternate names.

10 Essential Google+ Tips
Slideshow: 10 Essential Google+ Tips
(click image for larger view and for slideshow)
Google has revised its much-maligned name policy for Google+ Profiles to include support for nicknames, non-Roman scripts, and, to a limited extent, pseudonyms.

When Google+ launched last year, Google insisted that users identify themselves with the name by which they're commonly known. When users complained about the lack of support for pseudonyms, Google made some adjustments but stopped short of embracing names that conceal identity.

Now Google has given a bit more ground, although its revised policy, perhaps inevitably, remains rather ambiguous.

Bradley Horowitz, Google's VP of product, announced the change in a post on Google+. Based on feedback from the 1% of would-be Google+ users appealing denials of their desired Profile name, Horowitz said that 60% of users simply want to add a nickname, that 20% are businesses that are inadvertently trying to use Google+ Profiles rather than Google Pages to establish their Google+ presence, and that 20% are looking to use a pseudonym or other unconventional name.

[ What was the problem with the Google+ name policy? Read 5 Reasons Google+'s Name Policy Fails. ]

To address this feedback, Google over the next week will add support for nicknames and names written in an alternate script, like Cyrillic or Arabic, for example. These names will be presented alongside users' common names, rather than in place of them. Thus, a nickname will augment but not conceal a user's identifying name.

Conceding that Google has sometimes flagged names it should not have, Horowitz also said, "[W]e're updating our policies and processes to broaden support for established pseudonyms, from +trench coat to +Madonna."

Note the use of the word "established." Google is officially recognizing the presence of online pseudonymous personalities, like Thomas Hawk, whose presence on Google+ previously was inconsistent with Google's position on pseudonyms.

However, this isn't merely a formalization of Google's favoritism toward the famous, whereby services like Hangouts On Air are offered first to celebrities and those rich in followers. It's the de facto acceptance of reasonable, non-offensive pseudonyms.

If you open a Google+ account and lay claim to a pseudonym by which you're not already known, chances are Google won't allow it, if anyone at the company finds out. Try starting an account under the name "Larry Page" to find out more about the name-flagging process.

At the same time, building an online pseudonym to the point of being "established" should be relatively easy. With a few online posts as "SuperPundit," a handful of Twitter followers, and a few links to your website--search engine optimization 101--you're probably ready to participate in the Google social protection program, aka pseudonymous Google+. Horowitz suggests that possible criteria for establishing a pseudonym might be, among other things, a "meaningful following," whatever that means.

A Google spokesperson more or less conceded that Google isn't likely to be able to distinguish between real and fake names if those names don't call attention to themselves. If you sign up for Google+ under a pseudonym that sounds like a common name, Bob Smith for example, chances are no one at Google will ever know, unless someone rats you out. So between the fact that Google doesn't really want to subject every name to close scrutiny, and the fact that pseudonyms can be established with relative ease, expressing one's identity on Google+ is now subject to relatively few constraints.

Horowitz says that Google will continue to refine its handling of names and identity in the months to come. For now, the name policy on Google+ looks a bit more privacy-friendly than the name policy on Facebook.

Social media are generating tons of data, but that data only becomes truly valuable when examined in context. Attend the virtual Enterprise 2.0 event Social Analytics: The Bridge To Business Value, and learn how social analytics will provide the bridge to unlocking business value. It happens Feb. 16.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Seebs
50%
50%
Seebs,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/27/2012 | 12:23:48 AM
re: Google+ Accepts Pseudonyms, With Caveats
I don't buy it. I've been using the name "seebs" pretty much exclusively for close to twenty years now. My boss, my coworkers, my lawyer, my neighbors, my spouse, and my friends all call me "seebs". I am not allowed to use that name. There is no possibility of discussion, explanation, or conversation. I am not permitted to offer even a single word in defense of the name people call me by in real life. I just get told no. They haven't even said why, and there is no way to ask.

It's a publicity stunt, not a sincere response to the very real need for pseudonymity in the online world. They aren't serious about it. They are not making even a good faith effort to solve the problem.
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
Dark Reading Live EVENTS
INsecurity - For the Defenders of Enterprise Security
A Dark Reading Conference
While red team conferences focus primarily on new vulnerabilities and security researchers, INsecurity puts security execution, protection, and operations center stage. The primary speakers will be CISOs and leaders in security defense; the blue team will be the focus.
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: " I think Google Doodle is getting a little out of control"
Current Issue
Security Vulnerabilities: The Next Wave
Just when you thought it was safe, researchers have unveiled a new round of IT security flaws. Is your enterprise ready?
Flash Poll
[Strategic Security Report] Assessing Cybersecurity Risk
[Strategic Security Report] Assessing Cybersecurity Risk
As cyber attackers become more sophisticated and enterprise defenses become more complex, many enterprises are faced with a complicated question: what is the risk of an IT security breach? This report delivers insight on how today's enterprises evaluate the risks they face. This report also offers a look at security professionals' concerns about a wide variety of threats, including cloud security, mobile security, and the Internet of Things.
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2017-0290
Published: 2017-05-09
NScript in mpengine in Microsoft Malware Protection Engine with Engine Version before 1.1.13704.0, as used in Windows Defender and other products, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (type confusion and application crash) via crafted JavaScript code within ...

CVE-2016-10369
Published: 2017-05-08
unixsocket.c in lxterminal through 0.3.0 insecurely uses /tmp for a socket file, allowing a local user to cause a denial of service (preventing terminal launch), or possibly have other impact (bypassing terminal access control).

CVE-2016-8202
Published: 2017-05-08
A privilege escalation vulnerability in Brocade Fibre Channel SAN products running Brocade Fabric OS (FOS) releases earlier than v7.4.1d and v8.0.1b could allow an authenticated attacker to elevate the privileges of user accounts accessing the system via command line interface. With affected version...

CVE-2016-8209
Published: 2017-05-08
Improper checks for unusual or exceptional conditions in Brocade NetIron 05.8.00 and later releases up to and including 06.1.00, when the Management Module is continuously scanned on port 22, may allow attackers to cause a denial of service (crash and reload) of the management module.

CVE-2017-0890
Published: 2017-05-08
Nextcloud Server before 11.0.3 is vulnerable to an inadequate escaping leading to a XSS vulnerability in the search module. To be exploitable a user has to write or paste malicious content into the search dialogue.